Thursday, May 15, 2014

The inspired and preserved King James Bible. (Part 2)

Here I will answer some of the "problems" with being a King James Bible believer.

1.) How can a translation be inspired?

Translations have always been inspired. Anytime a New Testament author quotes the Old Testament which was written in Hebrew he is copying down a Greek translation of it.

For example, in Acts 21-22 Paul starts speaking in Hebrew but Luke (the author of Acts) is writing down what Paul said in Greek. The "original" book of Acts had translation in it.

Acts 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Acts 22:1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you........

2.) Acts 12:4 uses the word "Easter" instead of Passover.

Acts 12:4 And
when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to
four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to
bring him forth to the people.

Both words are clearly in chronological reference to the same period of time. Also, at the time of the AV translation the word "Easter" was somewhat synonymous with "Passover". See the Luther Bible of 1545.AV: 1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:Luther Bible: 1 Corinthians 5:7 Darum feget den alten Sauerteig aus, auf daß ihr ein neuer Teig seid, gleichwie ihr ungesäuert seid. Denn wir haben auch ein Osterlamm, das ist Christus, für uns geopfert.

"Osterlamm" = "Easter Lamb" "Easter" clearly is no error in the AV given that the words refer to the same period of time and were once synonymous. The Luther Bible also has the same reading of Acts 12:4 as the AV does.

3.) Where was the word of God before 1611?

Who cares? The Geneva Bible, Great Bible, Luther Bible, etc. were not bad choices. I was not around before 1611, I do not think anyone cares where the word of God was before 1611. The important thing is where is the word of God right now.

4.) The King James Bible has had several revisions made to it since 1611.

What is your point? Nestles Greek text has had 28 editions and you never said anything about that.

The AV has had several editions, but no revisions. The AV went through changes in font, spelling, and the printers errors were corrected......never a revision of readings/text.

5.) The King James translators were afraid to translate the Greek word for baptism to "immersion" and instead transliterated the word to not offend Catholics.

Boloney........I was given this rubbish by a Southern Baptist fellow who liked the NASB one time and I said "well does the NASB and the other modern versions use the word "baptize" and its variants?" His answer was "yes, but after 250+ years the word had become an actual English word." So I assume that means if a word has been in a language for 250 years it is okay to use it in a Bible......so then why is the AV in error for using "baptize" rather than "immerse"? The Wycliffe Bible of 1382 (229 years before the AV) used the word "baptize" and so did every other English bible. So the word "baptize" had been being used in English for 229 years before the AV came along.

Wycliffe Bible 1382: 1 Corinthians 10:2 "and all were baptized in Moses, in the cloud and in the sea;"

Might I also mentionthat "baptize" does not always mean an immersion. Would "immersion unto Moses" make sense here?

AV 1611: 1 Corinthians 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

Those who were immersed were the Egyptians and they all died. The Jews who were baptized "unto Moses" were identified with Moses.....not immersed unto him. Baptisms can be pourings, immersions, etc. but it just about is always a identification.

6.) The dead sea scrolls were not discovered yet and there have been new manuscripts found since 1611.

There have been no knew readings since 1611. Might I ask where was the word of God before the discovery of the dead sea scrolls (1946)?

7.) The King James Bible is archaic.

It works just fine for me, but those dead languages of Hebrew and Greek, now those are archaic and should be discarded. When you study, think, and read the AV like you believed it was the very words of God that are "profitable" (2 Tim. 3:16) I think you could understand it. That's all I have ever had to do besides use a dictionary every now and again. But isn't having to use an English dictionary better than having to use a Hebrew to English or Greek to English dictionary? I also have a list of where the modern versions changed the word in the AV to a more difficult word. The "archaic" argument is weak and hypocritical at best.

8.) The King James Bible contradicts in Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion.

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

The men with Paul heard a voice, but did not see a man. (Who's voice did they hear? We know the man they did not see was Jesus Christ.)

The men with Paul "heard not the voice of him" that spake with Paul (which was Jesus Christ).

So obviously the voice the men heard was Paul's voice and they were confused because they "saw no man" (to whom Paul was talking to).

9.) The King James Bible has words in italics that were added by the translators.

James L. Melton has responded to this by saying "The italicized words in the King James Bible are words that were added by the translators to help the reader. This is usually necessary when translating from one language to another because word meanings and idioms change. So, to produce a more readable translation, the King James translators (1604- 1611) added certain words to the Bible text. However, to make sure that everyone understood that these words were not in the available manuscripts they set them in italics........omitting the italicized words from II Samuel 21:19 would give Elhanan credit for slaying Goliath, yet everyone knows that it was David who slew Goliath. II Samuel 21:19 says:

"And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."

If we omit the words "the brother of" then we make II Samuel 21:19 contradict I Chronicles 20:5:

"And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam." (No italics!)

Another important point is that New Testament writers QUOTE from the italicized words in the Old Testament. Note the following:

Psalm 16:8 says: "I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved."

The words "he is" are in italics. When Peter quotes this verse in Acts 2:25 he also quotes the italicized words, but Luke doesn't write them in italics:

"For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved."

Why did Peter quote these words and why did Luke write these words if they weren't in the original manuscripts? Should we omit the italics? Not according to Peter and Luke!

In Deuteronomy 25:4, the word of God says:

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."

The words "the corn" are in italics, which the sceptics claim should be omitted. However, we find Paul quoting these words in I Corinthians 9:9:

"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?"

If these words do not belong in Deuteronomy 25:4, why did Paul quote them?

It is easy to claim that the italicized words do not belong in the King James Bible, but proving it is altogether a different story. May God help us to spend more time reading and believing our King James Bible and less time speaking critically of it." -James L. Melton http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/italics.html

The words in italics have to be added for the text to make sense, all translating requires that when you go from one language to the next.The modern versions do it too.

ESV Psalms 16:8 I have set the Lord always before me;because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken.

As you can see, the ESV contains the words "he is" which are not in italics, but those words ARE in italics in the AV. The modern versions had to add words as well, they just did not put them in italics to let you know like the AV translators did. I also have several books that show where the OT words are in italics, but people in the NT quote the OT passages but the words are not in italics anymore.

10.) The King James Bible differs from the Received Text (Textus Receptus).

And who ever said the TR was the inspired word of God?

11.) The older manuscripts Aleph and Vaticanus were not yet discovered in 1611.

Who cares? The readings were available in the catholic versions if they wanted them. I do not give a flip about Aleph and Vaticanus, might I ask where was the word of God before they were discovered?

12.) The 1611 King James Bible had the apocryphal books in them.

A Bible is an Old Testament and a New Testament, the AV of 1611 did not have the apocryphal books in either testament. It had them between the testaments apart from the canon. The modern versions Greek texts contain the apocrypha in them, but for some reason nobody ever talks about that.

13.) Erasmus was a Catholic.

Yes, and he was about as good a catholic as Martin Luther. Erasmus ate meat on Fridays and wrote a book against the wickedness of the catholic church. He believed in salvation by grace and faith alone and the catholic church REJECTED the Greek text of Erasmus and persecuted those who did use it (while they enjoined there manuscripts Aleph and B). Erasmus was just a little more roman catholic than my dog.

14.) The King James only advocates follow a man (Peter Ruckman).

Boloney, we follow a Book. I disagree with Dr. Ruckman on quite a few issues.